This opinion is subject to formal revision before publication in the preliminary print of the United States Reports.
Background[ edit ] The case involved Rodney J. Police arrested Gant in a friend's yard after he had parked his vehicle and was walking away. Gant and all other suspects on the scene were then secured in police patrol cars.
The officers then searched Gant's vehicle. After finding a weapon and a bag of cocainethey also charged him with possession of a narcotic drug for sale and possession of drug paraphernalia. Supreme Court on October 7, Jacobs argued that an unreasonable expansion of a limited authority to search vehicles incident to arrest provided by the Supreme Court's decision in New York v.
Lower courts were allowing searches after the initial justifications for setting aside the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement had ceased to exist, relying on a so-called bright-line rule of "if arrest, then search. Amici curiae[ edit ] A group of legal scholars, including University of Iowa law professor James Tomkoviczwrote an amicus curiae brief asking the court to overturn the case, New York v.
Beltonthat granted police the authority to search a person's vehicle even if that person is not in the vehicle. According to Tomkovicz, Belton failed to meet the constitutional standard of probable cause. Justice Scalia wrote a concurring opinion, stating that "we should simply abandon the Belton- Thornton charade of officer safety and overrule those cases.
I would hold that a vehicle search incident to arrest is ipso facto 'reasonable' only when the object of the search is evidence of the crime for which the arrest was made, or of another crime that the officer has probable cause to believe occurred.The Background of Arizona v.
Gant () Rodney Joseph Gant was arrested as a result of driving with a suspended license; he had parked his vehicle and was . Arizona v. Gant Implications for Law Enforcement Officers Jennifer G.
Solari Senior Instructor, Legal Division Federal Law Enforcement Training Center a rare case, however, an SIA of the passenger compartment would be reasonable under the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court’s Ruling in Arizona v.
Gant Robert L. Farb Professor of Public Law and Government School of Government The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. From our private database of 14,+ case briefs Arizona v. Gant. United States Supreme Court heartoftexashop.com () At trial, his motion to suppress was denied and he was convicted.
The Supreme Court of Arizona, however, upheld the motion, claiming the search violated the Fourth Amendment. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari. Home» Case Briefs Bank» Criminal Law & Criminal Procedure» Arizona v. Gant Case Brief. Arizona v. Gant Case Brief. Criminal Law & Criminal Procedure • Add Comment-8″?> faultCode faultString Have you written case briefs that you want to share with our community?
Arizona heartoftexashop.com Arizona heartoftexashop.com The U.S. Supreme Court limits how police searches a vehicle after Arizona heartoftexashop.com 21, the U.S.
Supreme Court adds new limits on how law enforcement officer can search the passenger compartments of a vehicle.